Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge
Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as
“the Project”) mainly comprises reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL). It is a designated project and is governed by the current permits for
the Project, i.e. the amended Environmental Permits (EPs) issued on 19 January 2015
(EP-353/2009/H) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern
Landfall Reclamation only).
Ove Arup &
Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the design and construction
assignment for the Project’s reclamation works (i.e. the Engineer for the
Project).
China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to undertake the construction work of
the Project.
ENVIRON Hong
Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD as the Independent
Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office (ENPO) for the
Project.
AECOM Asia Co.
Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the role of Environmental Team
for the Project for carrying out the environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) works.
The
construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on 12 March 2012
and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016. The EM&A programme, including air quality, noise, water quality and
dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections, was commenced on 12
March 2012.
This report documents the findings of EM&A works conducted in
the period between 1 December 2014 and 28 February 2015. As informed by the Contractor,
major activities in the reporting quarter were:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Rock filling
-
Sand filling
-
Public filling
-
Band drain installation
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Precast Yard for seawall blocks & culverts
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water intake of
HKIA
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
A summary of monitoring and audit activities conducted in
the reporting quarter is listed below:
|
24-hour
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring
1-hour
TSP monitoring
|
17 sessions
17 sessions
|
|
Noise monitoring
|
13 sessions
|
|
Impact
water quality monitoring
|
39 sessions
|
|
Impact
dolphin monitoring
|
6 surveys
|
|
Joint
Environmental site inspection
|
13 sessions
|
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Air Quality
Three
(3) action level exceedances of 24-hr
TSP were recorded AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7A on 12 February 2015. After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded action
level exceedances are related to this Contract. No 24-hr TSP Action and Limit
Level exceedances were recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting
period. All 1-Hour TSP results were below the Action and Limit Level in the
reporting period.
Breaches
of Action and Limit Levels for Noise
For construction noise, no exceedance was
recorded at all monitoring stations in the reporting period.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality
A
total of (17) seventeen exceedances were
recorded in this reporting quarter:
One
(1) limit level exeedance and one (1) action level
exceedance were recorded at monitoring station IS17 and IS(Mf)9 respectively on
5 December 2014 during mid ebb tide; one (1) action level exceedance was
recorded at IS10 and one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at SR5
respectively on 12 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level
exceedance was recorded at IS17 on 16 January 2015 during ebb tide; one (1)
action level exceedance was recorded at IS17, SR5, SR6 and IS10 respectively,
on 21 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was
recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR10B(N) and SR7 respectively on 23 January 2015 during
flood tide. One (1) limit level
exceedance was recorded at SR10A and SR6 respectively on 23 January 2015 during
flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11
on 26 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 and one (1) Action
Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during Flood tide recorded on 23 February 2015.
After
investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
Breaches of Action and Limit Levels for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was
recorded in the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that
the HZMB works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It
was also concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole
(or individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring was triggered. For detail of
investigation, please refer to appendix L.
Implementation Status and Review of Environmental
Mitigation Measures
Most of the recommended mitigation measures, as included in the
EM&A programme, were implemented properly in the
reporting quarter.
The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively
minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme
effectively monitored the environmental impacts from the construction
activities and ensure the proper implementation of mitigation measures. No
particular recommendation was advised for the improvement of the programme.
Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction
methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the
environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental
mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
Complaint,
Notification of Summons and Successful Prosecution
No complaint, notification of summons or prosecution was received
in the reporting quarter.
1.1.1 Contract No. HY/2010/02 – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Work (here below, known as “the Project”)
mainly comprises seawall construction and reclamation at the northeast of
the Hong Kong International Airport of
an area of
about 130-hectare for
the construction of an artificial island for the development of the Hong
Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), and about 19-hectare for the
southern landfall of the Tuen Mun
- Chek Lap Kok Link
(TMCLKL).
1.1.2 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports (Hong Kong –
Zhuhai – Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing
Facilities – EIA Report (Register No. AEIAR-145/2009) (HKBCFEIA) and Tuen Mun – Chek
Lap Kok Link – EIA Report (Register No.
AEIAR-146/2009) (TMCLKLEIA), and their environmental monitoring and audit
(EM&A) Manuals (original EM&A Manuals), for the Project were approved
by Environmental Protection Department (EPD) in October 2009.
1.1.3 EPD subsequently issued the
Environmental Permit (EP) for HKBCF in November 2009
(EP-353/2009) and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in June 2010
(EP-353/2009/A), November 2010 (EP-353/2009/B), November 2011 (EP-353/2009/C), March 2012
(EP-353/2009/D), October 2012 (EP-353/2009/E), April 2013 (EP-353/2009/F),
August 2013 (EP-353/2009/G) and January 2015 (EP-353/2009/H). Similarly, EPD
issued the Environmental Permit (EP) for TMCLKL in November 2009 (EP-354/2009)
and the Variation of Environmental Permit (VEP) in December 2010
(EP-354/2009/A), January 2014 (EP-354/2009/B), December 2014 (EP-354/2009/C)
and March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D).
1.1.4 The Project is a designated project and is governed by the current
permits for the Project, i.e. the amended EPs issued on 19 January 2015
(EP-353/2009/H) and 13 March 2015 (EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL Southern Landfall
Reclamation only).
1.1.5 A Project Specific EM&A Manual, which included all
project-relation contents from the original EM&A Manuals for the Project,
was issued in May 2012.
1.1.6 Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (Arup) was appointed by
Highways Department (HyD) as the consultants for the
design and construction assignment for the Project’s reclamation works (i.e.
the Engineer for the Project).
1.1.7 China Harbour Engineering Company Limited
(CHEC) was awarded by HyD as the Contractor to
undertake the construction work of the Project.
1.1.8 ENVIRON Hong Kong Ltd. was employed by HyD
as the Independent Environmental Checker (IEC) and Environmental Project Office
(ENPO) for the Project.
1.1.9 AECOM Asia Co. Ltd. (AECOM) was appointed by CHEC to undertake the
role of Environmental Team for the Project for carrying out the EM&A works.
1.1.10 The construction phase of the Project under the EPs was commenced on
12 March 2012 and will be tentatively completed by early Year 2016.
1.1.11 According to the Project Specific EM&A Manual, there is a need
of an EM&A programme including air quality,
noise, water quality and dolphin monitoring and environmental site inspections.
The EM&A programme of the Project commenced on 12
March 2012.
1.2
Scope of Report
1.2.1 This is the twelfth quarterly EM&A Report under the Contract No.
HY/2010/02 Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary
Crossing Facilities – Reclamation Works. This report presents a summary
of the environmental monitoring and audit works, list of activities and
mitigation measures proposed by the ET for the Project from 1 December 2014 to
28 February 2015.
1.3.1 The project organization structure is shown in Appendix A. The key
personnel contact names and numbers are summarized in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Contact
Information of Key Personnel
|
Party
|
Position
|
Name
|
Telephone
|
Fax
|
|
Engineer’s
Representative (ER)
(Ove
Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited)
|
Chief
Resident Engineer
|
Roger Marechal
|
2528
3031
|
2668
3970
|
|
IEC
/ ENPO
(ENVIRON
Hong Kong Limited)
|
Independent
Environmental Checker
|
Raymond
Dai
|
3465
2888
|
3548
6988
|
|
Environmental
Project Office Leader
|
Y.H. Hui
|
3465
2868
|
3465
2899
|
|
Contractor
(China
Harbour Engineering Company Limited)
|
General
Manager (S&E)
|
Daniel
Leung
|
3157
1086
|
2578
0413
|
|
Environmental
Officer
|
Richard Ng
|
36932253
|
2578
0413
|
|
24-hour
Hotline
|
Alan C.C. Yeung
|
9448
0325
|
--
|
|
ET
(AECOM
Asia Company Limited)
|
ET
Leader
|
Echo
Leong
|
3922
9280
|
2317
7609
|
1.4.1 The construction phase of the Project under the EP
commenced on 12 March 2012.
1.4.2 As informed by the Contractor, details of the major works carried
out in the reporting quarter are listed below:-
Marine-based Works
-
Cellular structure installation
-
Capping Beams structures
-
Conforming sloping seawalls
-
Laying geo-textile
-
Rock filling
-
Sand filling
-
Public filling
-
Band drain installation
-
Surcharge remove & laying
-
Deep Cement Mixing
-
Geotechnical Instrumentation works
-
Precast Yard for seawall blocks & culverts
-
Maintenance of silt curtain & silt screen at sea water
intake of HKIA
Land-based Works
-
Maintenance works of Site Office at Works Area WA2
-
Maintenance works of Public Works Regional Laboratory at Works Area WA3
-
Maintenance of Temporary Marine Access at Works Area WA2
1.4.3 The 3-month rolling construction programme
of the Project is shown in Appendix B.
1.4.4 The general layout plan of the Project site showing the detailed
works areas is shown in Figure 1.
1.4.5 The environmental mitigation measures implementation schedule are
presented in Appendix C.
2.1.1 The Project Specific EM&A Manual designated 4 air quality
monitoring stations, 2 noise monitoring stations, 21 water monitoring stations
(9 Impact Stations, 7 Sensitive Receiver Stations and 5 Control/Far Field
Stations) to monitor environmental impacts on air quality, noise and water
quality respectively. Pre-set and fixed transect line vessel based dolphin
survey was required in two AFCD designated areas (Northeast and Northwest
Lantau survey areas). The impact dolphin monitoring at each survey area should
be conducted twice per month.
2.1.2 For impact air quality monitoring, monitoring locations AMS2 (Tung
Chung Development Pier) and AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) were set up
at the proposed locations in accordance with Project Specific EM&A Manual.
The conditional omission of Monitoring Station AMS6 was effective since 19
November 2012. For monitoring location AMS3 (Ho Yu College), as proposed in the
Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for carrying out impact monitoring
could not be obtained from the principal of the school. Permission on setting
up and carrying out impact monitoring works at nearby sensitive receivers, like
Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also sought. However, approvals for carrying out
impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact air
quality monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in
Works Area WA2 (AMS3B) respectively. Same baseline and Action Level for air
quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu
College, was adopted for this alternative air quality location.
2.1.3 For impact noise monitoring, monitoring locations NMS2 (Seaview
Crescent Tower 1) was set up at the proposed locations in accordance with
Project Specific EM&A Manual. However, for monitoring location NMS3 (Ho Yu
College), as proposed in the Project Specific EM&A Manual, approval for
carrying out impact monitoring could not be obtained from the principal of the
school. Permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring works at
nearby sensitive receivers, like Caribbean Coast and Coastal Skyline, was also
sought. However, approvals for carrying
out impact monitoring works within their premises were not obtained. Impact
noise monitoring was conducted at site boundary of the site office area in
Works Area WA2 (NMS3B) respectively. Same baseline noise level, as derived from
the baseline monitoring data recorded at Ho Yu College was adopted for this
alternative noise monitoring location. Reference is made to ET’s proposal of
relocation of air quality monitoring station (AMS7) dated on 2 February
2015, with no further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no
objection received from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel)
has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea
Union Transportation Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as derived from the
baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong
Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for
this alternative air quality location.
2.1.4 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, twenty-one
stations were designated for impact water quality monitoring. The nine Impact
Stations (IS) were chosen on the basis of their proximity to the reclamation
and thus the greatest potential for water quality impacts, the seven Sensitive
Receiver Stations (SR) were chosen as they are close to the key sensitive receives
and the five Control/ Far Field Stations (CS) were chosen to facilitate
comparison of the water quality of the IS stations with less influence by the
Project/ ambient water quality conditions.
2.1.5 Due to safety concern and topographical condition of the original
locations of SR4 and SR10B, alternative impact water quality monitoring
stations, naming as SR4(N) and SR10B(N), were adopted,
which are situated in vicinity of the original impact water quality monitoring
stations (SR4 and SR10B) and could be reachable. Same baseline and Action Level
for water quality, as derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded, were
adopted for these alternative impact water quality monitoring stations.
2.1.6 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figures 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
2.1.7 The Project Specific EM&A Manual also required environmental
site inspections for air quality, noise, water quality, chemical, waste
management, marine ecology and landscape and visual impact.
2.2.1 The environmental quality performance limits (i.e. Action and/or
Limit Levels) of air and water quality monitoring were derived from the
baseline air and water quality monitoring results at the respective monitoring
stations, while the environmental quality performance limits of noise
monitoring were defined in the EM&A Manual.
2.2.2 The environmental quality performance limits of air quality, noise
and water monitoring are given in Appendix D.
2.3.1 Relevant environmental mitigation measures were stipulated in the
Particular Specification and EPs (EP-353/2009/H and EP-354/2009/D) (for TMCLKL
Southern Landfall Reclamation only) for the Contractor to adopt. A list of
environmental mitigation measures and their implementation statuses are given
in Appendix C.
3.1.1 In accordance with the Project Specific EM&A Manual, impact 1-hour
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) monitoring was conducted for at least three
times every 6 days, while impact 24-hour TSP monitoring was carried out for at
least once every 6 days at the 4 monitoring stations (AMS2, AMS3B, AMS6 and
AMS7/AMS7A).
3.1.2 The monitoring locations for impact air quality monitoring are
depicted in Figure 2. However, for AMS6 (Dragonair/CNAC
(Group) Building), permission on setting up and carrying out impact monitoring
works was sought, however, access to the premise has not been granted yet on
this report issuing date.
3.1.3 Reference is made to ET’s proposal of relocation of air quality
monitoring station (AMS7/AMS7A) dated on 2 February 2015, with no
further comment received from IEC on 2 February 2015 and no objection received
from EPD on 5 February 2015, the impact air quality monitoring
station AMS7 (Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel) has been relocated to AMS7A (Chu Kong Air-Sea Union Transportation
Company Limited) on 3 February 2015. Action Level for air quality, as
derived from the baseline monitoring data recorded at Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel, was adopted for this
alternative air quality location.
3.1.4 The weather was mostly fine and sunny, with occasional cloudy in the
reporting quarter. The major dust source in the reporting quarter included
construction activities from the Project, as well as nearby traffic emissions.
3.1.5 The number of monitoring events and exceedances recorded in each
month of the reporting quarter are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2
respectively.
Table 3.1 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Concentration
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
No. of monitoring events
|
|
December 14
|
January 15
|
February 15
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
|
AMS3B
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
|
AMS7/7A*
|
18
|
18
|
15
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
|
AMS3B
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
|
AMS7/7A*
|
6
|
6
|
5
|
Table
3.2 Summary
of Number of Exceedances for 1-hr & 24-hr TSP Monitoring
|
Monitoring Parameter
|
Location
|
Level of Exceedance
|
Numbers of Exceedance
|
|
December 14
|
January 15
|
February 15
|
|
1-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS7/7A*
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
24-hr TSP
|
AMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
AMS7/7A*
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
* The impact
air quality monitoring station AMS7 has been relocated to AMS7A on 3 February
2015.
3.1.6
Three action level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded AMS2, AMS3B
and AMS7A on 12 February 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to
this Contract. No 24-hr TSP Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded on
other monitoring date in the reporting month. All 1-Hour TSP results were below
the Action and Limit Level in the reporting month.
3.1.7
For the three action level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded AMS2,
AMS3B and AMS7A on 12 February 2015:
3.1.7.1
According to information
provided by the Contractor, construction activities such as rock filling,
transferring of public fill for surcharge and operation of TSHD for filling
activity were undertaken at north of HKBCF reclamation works on 11 and 12
February 2015. Also refer to layout map below for location of works activities
and monitoring stations AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7A on 11 and 12 February 2015.
3.1.7.2
Checking of Mitigation
measures:
3.1.7.3
Watering record was checked and
it shows that watering was implemented on HKBCF Reclamation works on 11 and 12 February
2015. Also refer to attached photo record taken on 9 February 2015 which shows
implementation of dust control measure such as watering on HKBCF reclamation
site.
3.1.7.4
Photo record taken on 12
February 2015 shows that roads were paved with hard surface and kept clear of
dusty materials at Works Area at WA2.
3.1.7.5
Photo record taken on 5
February 2015 below showed that the Contractor implemented dust control
measures at HKBCF reclamation works such as watering on exposed soil. The
Contractor was reminded to continue to provide such dust control measure.
3.1.7.6
Photo record taken on 12
February 2015 showed that the Contractor implemented dust control measures such
as hard paved roads at WA2. The Contractor was reminded to continue to provide
such dust control measure.
3.1.7.7
Checking record shows that
plant engine is operated by using ultra low sulphur
diesel (ULSD) and these minimize the possibility of air pollution via plant
operation.
3.1.7.8
Also, with reference to the
weekly joint site inspection records of 5 and 12 February 2015, generation of
dark smoke or fugitive dust was not observed and this indicates that plant
engines were properly maintained and unlikely that work activities have
contributed to the dust action level exceedance recorded on 12 February 2015.
3.1.7.9
Other references:
3.1.7.10 Functional checking on High Volume Sampler (HVS) at AMS2, AMS3B and
AMS7A was done, air flow of the HVS was checked and the flow was steady during
the 24-hr TSP sampling at AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7A. The filter paper was
re-weighted by the assigned HOKLAS laboratory and the result was reconfirmed.
3.1.7.11 The 1-hr TSP values recorded on 12 February 2015 which are within
the monitoring days of the 24-hr TSP, were 73μg/m3, 75μg/m3
and 75μg/m3 respectively at AMS2; 76μg/m3, 77μg/m3
and 74μg/m3 respectively at AMS3B; 75μg/m3, 77μg/m3
and 73μg/m3 respectively at AMS7A. All measured values are well
below the Action and Limit Levels.
3.1.7.12 The wind data collected at wind station at Works Area WA2 during the
monitoring period on 11 and 12 February 2015 shows that Southwest and West
Northwest winds were prevailing during the monitoring period. This indicates
that source of exceedance was unlikely to attribute to HKBCF Reclamation Works.
3.1.7.13 Information available on government’s AQHI website shows that the
short-term health risk of air pollution is very high in Tung Chung (with max
value 9 to 10) on 11 and 12 February 2015 respectively indicating the air
pollution at the background is relatively high during the monitoring period. The
high level of background air pollution on 11 and 12 February 2015 may
contribute to the high level of TSP recorded. Information available
online: http://www.aqhi.gov.hk/epd/ddata/html/history/2015/201502_Eng.csv
3.1.7.14 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the recorded action level exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.1.7.15 The Contractor was recommended to continue implementing existing
dust mitigation measures and the Contractor was reminded ensure to undertake
watering at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Project site
and associated work areas throughout the construction phase.
3.1.8 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.1.9 Meteorological information collected from the wind station during
the monitoring periods on the monitoring dates, as shown in Figure 2, including
wind speed and wind direction, is annexed in Appendix H of monthly EM&A
report December 2014, January and February 2015 respectively.
3.2.1 Impact noise monitoring was conducted at the 2 monitoring stations
(NMS2 and NMS3B) for at least once per week during 07:00 – 19:00 in the
reporting quarter.
3.2.2 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figure 2.
3.2.3 No Action or Limit Level Exceedance of construction noise was
recorded in the reporting quarter.
3.2.4 Major noise sources during the noise monitoring included
construction activities of the Project and nearby traffic noise.
3.2.5 The number of impact noise monitoring events and exceedances are
summarized in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 respectively.
Table
3.3 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Events for Impact
Noise
|
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
No.
of monitoring events
|
|
December 14
|
January 15
|
February 15
|
|
NMS2
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
|
NMS3B
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
Table 3.4 Summary
of Number of Monitoring Exceedances for Impact
Noise
|
Monitoring
Parameter
|
Location
|
Level
of Exceedance
|
Level
of Exceedance
|
|
December 14
|
January 15
|
February 15
|
|
NMS2
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
NMS3B
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3.2.6 The graphical plots of the trends of the monitoring results are
provided in Appendix F. No
specific trend of the monitoring results or existence of persistent pollution
source was noted.
3.2.7 The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.3
Water Quality Monitoring
3.3.1 The monitoring locations used during the reporting quarter are
depicted in Figure 3.
3.3.3 One
(1) limit level exeedance and one (1) action level
exceedance were recorded at monitoring station IS17 and IS(Mf)9
respectively on 5 December 2014 during mid ebb tide. One (1) action level exceedance was recorded at
IS10 and one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at SR5 respectively on 12
January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at
IS17 on 16 January 2015 during ebb tide; one (1) action level exceedance was
recorded at IS17, SR5, SR6 and IS10 respectively, on 21 January 2015 during
flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR10B(N)
and SR7 respectively on 23 January 2015 during flood tide. One (1) limit level exceedance was
recorded at SR10A and SR6 respectively on 23 January 2015 during flood tide;
one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11
on 26 January 2015 during flood tide. One (1) Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 and one (1) Action
Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during Flood tide recorded on 23 February 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
Table
3.5 Summary
of Water Quality Exceedances in December
2014 – February 2015
|
Station
|
Exceedance Level
|
DO (S&M)
|
DO (Bottom)
|
Turbidity
|
SS
|
Total
|
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
Ebb
|
Flood
|
|
IS5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS8
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)9
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Dec 14
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS10
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 12 & 21 Jan
15
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS(Mf)11
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 23 & 26 Jan
15
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
23 Feb 15
|
0
|
1
|
|
IS(Mf)16
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
IS17
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 16 Jan 15
|
(1) 21 Jan 15
|
1
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1)
5 Dec 14
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
SR3
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR4(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR5
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 12 & 21 Jan 15
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR6
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 21 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
|
SR7
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(2) 23 Jan 15 and
23 Feb 15
|
0
|
2
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
SR10A
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
|
SR10B
(N)
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
(1) 23 Jan 15
|
0
|
1
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
Action
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
11
|
13
|
|
|
Limit
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
Note: S: Surface;
M: Mid-depth;
3.3.4
For water quality, one (1) action level and one (1) limit level exceedace
were recorded at IS(Mf)9 and IS17 respectively on 5 December 2014 during mid
ebb tide. No exceedance was
recorded at all other monitoring stations in the reporting month. The exceedances were confirmed after checking against relevant
control station(s) during ebb tide i.e. CS4 and CS(Mf)3
following the Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.4.1
Layout map below shows active works conducted on 5 December 2014 during
ebb tide.
3.3.4.2
Exceedances recorded at IS17 and IS(Mf)9 during
ebb tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Project because:
3.3.4.3
With refer to monitoring record, appearance of water was relatively more
turbid at IS17 and IS(Mf)9 when compared with the
appearance of water at IS(Mf)11, IS10, IS(Mf)16, IS7 and IS8 during monitoring
at ebb tide on 05 December 2014.
3.3.4.4
However, with refer to the layout map attached, only public fill was
being transferred as surcharge at near Portion A and since no marine filling
was conducted during ebb tide on 5 December 2014, therefore, they are unlikely
contribute to the exceedance of SS at IS17 and IS(Mf)9.
3.3.4.5
The location and type of active works conducted were almost the same on
5 and 8 December 2014 during ebb tide but no exceedance was recorded a IS17 and
IS(Mf)9 on 8 December 2014. This indicates that the exceedances at monitoring
station IS17 and IS(Mf)9 were unlikely to be
contributed by active works.
3.3.4.6
In addition, with referred to monitoring record, no sediment plume has
been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain during ebb tide on 5 December 2014.
(Please refer to photo record taken during ebb tide on 5 December 2015)
3.3.4.7
Photo record which shows the sea condition
near Portion B, the southeast part of the HKBCF reclamation works at ebb tide
on 5 December 2014.
3.3.4.8
Photo record which shows the sea condition near Portion E, the northeast
part of the HKBCF reclamation works at ebb tide on 5 December 2014
3.3.4.9
Turbidity level recorded at IS17, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16, IS(Mf)9, IS7 and IS8 on 5
December 2014 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity level at area near IS17 and IS(Mf)9 were not
adversely affected.
3.3.4.10
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17
and IS(Mf)9.
3.3.4.11
As such, the exceedances recorded at IS17 and IS(Mf)9
are unlikely to be project related.
3.3.4.12
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.4.13
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.4.14
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.5
For water quality, one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS10
and one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at SR5 respectively on 12
January 2015 during flood tide. The exceedances were
confirmed after checking against relevant control station(s) during flood tide
i.e. CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5 following the Action and
Limit Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.5.1
Attached layout map shows active works conducted on 12 January 2015. No
marine based construction works such as filling were conducted at northwest
part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works
3.3.5.2
Exceedance recorded at IS10 and SR5 during mid-flood tide are unlikely
due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.5.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects was not
observed at northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS10 and SR5.
3.3.5.4
No filling activities was observed in progress
and no silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was
conducted at IS10 and SR5. (Also see attached for sea condition observed on 12
January 2015 during flood tide.)
3.3.5.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition near Portion C2a, the
northwest part of the HKBCF
3.3.5.6
Photo record which shows the sea condition near Portion C2a, the
northwest part of the HKBCF
3.3.5.7
Also, turbidity level recorded at SR5, IS10 and IS(Mf)11
were below the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at
area near SR5 and IS10 was not adversely affected.
3.3.5.8
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR5 and
IS10.
3.3.5.9
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.5.10
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.5.11
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.5.12
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.6
For water quality, one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS17
on 16 January 2015 during ebb tide. The exceedance was
confirmed after checking against relevant control station(s) during ebb tide
i.e. CS4 and CS(Mf)3 following the Action and Limit
Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.6.1
Attached layout map shows active works conducted on 16 January 2015.
Marine based construction activities such as rock filling was conducted at
north part of the HKBCF Reclamation Works.
3.3.6.2
Exceedance recorded at IS17 during ebb tide is unlikely due to marine
based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.6.3
Turbidity level recorded at IS17, IS(Mf)11, IS(Mf)16, IS(Mf)9, IS7 and IS8 on 16
January 2015 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity level at area near IS17 were not adversely
affected.
3.3.6.4
With refer to the layout map attached, rock filling is the only marine
based construction works conducted during ebb tide on 16 January 2015 at
portion C2C which realtively far away from IS17, as
such, it is unlikely to cause the exceedance of SS at IS17.
3.3.6.5
The location and type of active works conducted were almost the same on
19 January 2015 during ebb tide but no exceedance was recorded at IS17 on 19
January 2015. This indicates that the exceedances at monitoring station IS17
was unlikely to be contributed by active work.
3.3.6.6
In addition, with referred to monitoring record, no sediment plume has
been observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the
outside of the perimeter silt curtain during ebb tide on 16 January 2015.
(Please refer to photo record taken during ebb tide on 16 January 2015) 
3.3.6.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17.
3.3.6.8
As such, the exceedance recorded at IS17 is unlikely to be project
related.
3.3.6.9
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedance was attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.6.10
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.6.11
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.7
For water quality, one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS17,
SR5, SR6 and IS10 respectively, on 21 January 2015 during flood tide. The exceedance was confirmed after checking against relevant control
station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5
following the Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.7.1
Attached layout map shows active works conducted on 21 January 2015.
Construction works such as rock filling was conducted near portion C2a of the
HKBCF Reclamation Works on 21 January 2015.
3.3.7.2
Exceedances recorded at IS10, SR5 and SR6 during mid-flood tide are
unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.7.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects were not observed
at northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain which are
close to the IS10 and SR5.
3.3.7.4
Rock filling was conducted near portion C2a during flood tide, but no
silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain
to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was conducted.
(Also see attached photo record for sea condition taken at west side of the
HKBCF Reclamation Works on 21 January 2015 during flood tide.)
3.3.7.5
Also, turbidity level recorded at IS10, SR5, SR6 were below the action
and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at area near IS10, SR5, SR6
and IS17 were not adversely affected.
3.3.7.6
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of
IS10, SR5 and SR6.
3.3.7.7
Exceedance recorded at IS17 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to
marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.7.8
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects were
observed at northeast part of the silt curtain.
3.3.7.9
Although rock filling was conducted near portion C2a during flood tide,
no silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was
conducted. (Also see attached photo record for sea condition on 21 January 2015
during northwest side of the HKBCF Reclamation Works during flood tide.)
3.3.7.10
Photo record which shows the sea condition
near at northeast side of HKBCF Reclamation Works at flood tide on 21 January
2015.
3.3.7.11
Photo record which shows the sea condition
near at west side of HKBCF Reclamation Works at flood tide on 21 January 2015.
3.3.7.12
Also, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, IS17
and IS(Mf)16 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity level at area near IS17 was not adversely affected.
3.3.7.13
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS17.
3.3.7.14
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.7.15
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedances are unlikely to be
project related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered
applicable.
3.3.7.16
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.7.17
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.8
For water quality, one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR10B(N) and SR7 respectively on 23 January 2015
during flood tide. One (1) limit
level exceedance was recorded at SR10A and SR6 respectively on 23 January 2015
during flood tide. The exceedance was confirmed after
checking against relevant control station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA
and CS(Mf)5 following the Action and Limit Levels for
Water Quality.
3.3.8.1
Attached layout map shows active works conducted on 23 January 2015.
Marine based construction works such rock filling were conducted at southeast
part of HKBCF Reclamation Works. 
3.3.8.2
Exceedances recorded at SR10A and SR10B(N)
during mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities
of the Project because:
3.3.8.3
IS17, IS(Mf)16, CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5 are closer
to the active works than monitoring station SR10A and SR10B(N) during flood
tide. Depth Averaged Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded
during flood tide on the same day
at IS17, IS(Mf)16, CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5 were below the Action and Limit Level
which indicates HKBCF reclamation works is unlikely to contribute to the action
level exceedances recorded at SR10A and SR10B(N).
3.3.8.4
The monitoring location of monitoring station SR10B(N) are considered
upstream and remote to the active works of this project during flood tide.
Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedances recorded at SR10A and SR10B(N) during flood tide was due to HKBCF Reclamation
Works.
3.3.8.5
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of
SR10A and SR10B(N).
3.3.8.6
Exceedance recorded at SR6 during mid-flood tide is unlikely due to
marine based construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.8.7
IS10 and SR5 are downstream and closer to the HKBCF Reclamation Works
than monitoring station SR6 during flood tide. Depth Averaged
Suspended Solids (SS) values (in mg/L) recorded during flood tide on the same day at IS10 and
SR5 were below the Action and Limit Level which indicates HKBCF reclamation
works is unlikely to contribute to the action level exceedance recorded at SR6.
3.3.8.8
The monitoring location of monitoring station SR6 are considered remote
to the HKBCF Reclamation Works. Therefore it was unlikely that the exceedance
recorded at SR6 during flood tide was due to HKBCF Reclamation Works.
3.3.8.9
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of SR6.
3.3.8.10
Exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)11 and SR7 during
mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Project because:
3.3.8.11
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects were
observed at north and northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain which are close IS11.
3.3.8.12
With referred to the attached layout map, marine based construction
works such rock filling were conducted at southeast part of the site, however
no silt plume was observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt
curtain to the outside of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was
conducted during flood tide. (Also see attached for sea condition observed on
23 January 2015 during flood tide.)
3.3.8.13
Photo record which shows the sea condition
at northeast part of the HKBCF reclamation works during flood tide on 23
January 2015.
3.3.8.14
Photo record which shows the sea condition at the east part of the HKBCF
reclamation works during flood tide on 23 January 2015.
3.3.8.15
Also, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11,
SR7, IS10 and IS17 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity level at or near IS(Mf)11 and SR7 was not
adversely affected.
3.3.8.16
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11 and SR7.
3.3.8.17
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.8.18
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not
measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears
that it was unlikely that the SS exceedances were attributed to active
construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedances are unlikely to be
project related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered
applicable.
3.3.8.19
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.8.20
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.9
For water quality, one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11 on 26 January 2015 during flood tide. The exceedance was confirmed after checking against relevant
control station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA and CS(Mf)5
following the Action and Limit Levels for Water Quality.
3.3.9.1
Attached layout map shows active works conducted on 26 January 2015. No
marine based construction works such as marine filling were conducted at the
HKBCF Reclamation Works. 
3.3.9.2
Exceedance recorded at IS(Mf)11 during
mid-flood tide are unlikely due to marine based construction activities of the
Project because:
3.3.9.3
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defect was observed
at north part of the perimeter silt curtain which are close to the IS(Mf)11.
3.3.9.4
No filling activities was observed in progress and no silt plume was
observed to flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside
of the perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was conducted at IS(Mf)11. (Also see attached for sea condition observed on
26 January 2015 during flood tide.
3.3.9.5
Photo record which shows the sea condition at north part of the HKBCF
reclamation works during flood tide on 26 January 2015.
3.3.9.6
Also turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11,
IS10, IS17 and SR7 were below the action and limit level. In addition, SS results
at IS10, IS17 and SR7 were below the action and limit level. This indicates the
turbidity and SS level at area near IS(Mf)11 were not
adversely affected.
3.3.9.7
The exceedance was likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11.
3.3.9.8
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedance is related to this Contract.
3.3.9.9
Action taken under the action plan
1.
Not applicable as SS was not
measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above mentioned investigation results, it appears
that it was unlikely that the SS exceedance was attributed to active
construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.9.10
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.9.11
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday.
3.3.10
For water quality, one (1) Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 and
one (1) Action Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during Flood tide recorded on 23
February 2015. The exceedances were confirmed after
checking against relevant control station(s) during flood tide i.e. CS6, CSA
and CS(Mf)5 following the Action and Limit Levels for
Water Quality.
3.3.10.1
Exceedances recorded at IS(Mf)11 and SR7 during
mid-flood tide on 23 February 2015 are unlikely due to marine based
construction activities of the Project because:
3.3.10.2
With reference to the silt curtain checking record, defects were
observed at north and northwest part of the perimeter silt curtain which are
close IS(Mf)11.
3.3.10.3
With referred to the layout map below, no marine based construction work
was conducted on site on 23 February 2015 and no silt plume was observed to
flow from the inside of the perimeter silt curtain to the outside of the
perimeter silt curtain when monitoring was conducted during flood tide. (Also
see below photo record for sea condition observed on 23 February 2015 during
flood tide.
3.3.10.4
Photo record which shows the sea condition at north part of the HKBCF
reclamation works during flood tide on 23 February 2015:
3.3.10.5
Also, turbidity level recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR7, IS10 and IS17 were 24.9(NTU),
14.7(NTU), 5.7(NTU) and 23.9(NTU) respectively; Suspended solids level recorded
at IS10 and IS17 were 23.2mg/L and 7.9mg/L respectively, which were all below
the action and limit level. This indicates the turbidity level at or near IS(Mf)11 and SR7 and Suspended Solids level near IS(Mf)11
and SR7 were not adversely affected.
3.3.10.6
The exceedances were likely due to local effects in the vicinity of IS(Mf)11 and SR7.
3.3.10.7
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the
recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
3.3.10.8
Action taken under the action plan:
1.
Not applicable as SS was not measured in situ;
2.
After considering the above
mentioned investigation results, it appears that it was unlikely that the SS
exceedances were attributed to active construction activities of this Contract;
3.
IEC, contractor and ER were informed via email;
4.
Monitoring data, all plant, equipment and Contractor's working methods
were checked;
5.
Since it is considered that the SS exceedance is unlikely to be project
related, as such, actions 5-7 under the EAP are not considered applicable.
3.3.10.9
Nevertheless, the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of ongoing
maintenance to the silt curtains and to carry out maintenance work once defects
were found.
3.3.10.10
Maintenance work of the silt curtain was carried out by the Contractor
on a daily basis except Sunday and public holiday
3.3.11
The event action plan is annexed in Appendix K.
3.4.2 The impact dolphin monitoring conducted is vessel-based and combines
line-transect and photo-ID methodology, which have adopted similar survey
methodologies as that adopted during baseline monitoring to facilitate
comparisons between datasets.
3.4.3 The layout map of impact dolphin monitoring have been provided by
AFCD and is shown in Figure 4.
3.4.4 The effort summary and sighting details during the reporting quarter
are shown in the Appendix H. A summary of key findings of the dolphin surveys
completed during the reporting quarter is shown below:
Table 3.6 Summary
of Key Dolphin Survey Findings in December 2014 –
February 2015
|
Number of Impact Surveys Completed^
|
6
|
|
Survey Distance Travelled under Favourable
On- Effort Condition
|
657.6km
|
|
Number of Sightings
|
15 sightings (9 sightings are ”on effort” (which are all under favourable condition), 6 “sightings are opportunistic”)
|
|
Number of dolphin individual sighted
|
42 individuals (the best estimated group size)
|
|
Dolphin Encounter Rate#
|
NEL: 0
NWL: 2.1
|
|
Dolphin Group Size
|
Average of NEL: 0
Average of NWL: 2.8
Varied from 1-10 individuals
|
|
Most Often frequent dolphin sighting area
|
Northern Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine
Park, the western limit of NWL and Tai O area.
|
Remarks:
^
Completion of line transect survey of NEL and NWL
survey area once was counted as one complete survey.
# Dolphin Encounter Rate = (Sum of 1st 2nd, 3rd
month’s total sighting/ Sum of 1st , 2nd,
3rd month’s total effort)*100km (encounter
rates are calculated using on effort sightings made under favourable
conditions only.)
3.4.5 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in
the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB
works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or
individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L.
*Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Number of
Dolphin Sightings (STG) presents averaged encounter rates of the three
monitored months in terms of groups per 100km per survey event.
STG Encounter rate = (Average of (total number
sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average
of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 2nd
month + Average of (total number sighting/total effort) of 1st and 2nd
completed survey# of 3rd month)/3*100km
**Quarterly Average Encounter Rate of Total Number
of Dolphins (ANI) presents averaged encounter rates of the three monitored
months in terms of individuals per 100km per survey event.
ANI Encounter rate = (Average of (total number of
Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey# of 1st month+ Average
of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and 2nd completed survey#
of 2nd month + Average of (total number of Individual/total effort) of 1st and
2nd completed survey# of 3rd month +)/3*100km
3.4.6 Details of the comparison and analysis methodology and their
findings and discussions are annexed in Appendix H.
3.4.7 A review of survey conditions was conducted. The works at lines 1
and 2 are progressing and permanent in water structures are in place. Given
that these lines are now truncated due to these structures, it is advised that
the start/end points of these lines be revised to reflect the new navigation
required. A draft proposal to alter transect lines 1 and 2 was submitted to
IEC/ENPO on 23 January 2015 to account for the permanent structures in the
water. Further comments were given by IEC/ENPO on 26 February 2015 and the
draft proposal was under ET’s review in February 2015.
3.5.1 Site Inspections were carried out on a weekly basis to monitor the
implementation of proper environmental pollution control and mitigation
measures for the Project. In the reporting quarter, 13 site inspections were
carried out. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the Contractors
for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
3.5.2 Particular observations during the site inspections are described
below:
Air Quality
3.5.3
A material storage tank of an idle grout production facility was observed
not fully enclosed. Please be advised that the material storage tanks of a
grout production facility should be fully covered / enclosed. The Contractor
enclosed the grout production facility (Closed).
3.5.4
Recycle glass cullet for earthwork was observed stored on Portion C2a
with and it is fully covered with tarpaulin
or impervious sheets. The Contractor was reminded to continue to
provide effective dust suppression measures. (Reminder)
3.5.5 Dark smoke from TSHD was observed. The Contractor was reminded ensure
plants are kept in good condition and dark smoke emission from plant/equipment
is avoided. The Contractor rectified the situation and kept plants in good
condition and dark smoke emission from plant is avoided. (Closed)
Noise
3.5.6
In general, please provide acoustic decoupling
measures to air compressors and other noisy equipment when they are mounted on
construction vessels. (Reminder)
Chinese White
Dolphin
3.5.7 No adverse observation was identified in the reporting quarter.
Water Quality
3.5.8
No adverse observation was identified in the reporting
month.
Chemical and Waste Management
3.5.9
Oil drum was observed without label on barge SHB 209 and Portion D, the
Contractor was reminded to provide proper labeling to oil drum. The Contractor
provided labeling to oil drum on barge SHB 209. (Closed)
3.5.10
Oil and water mixture was observed accumulated inside drip tray. The
Contractor was reminded to regularly clear it to prevent potential runoff. The
Contractor cleared the oil and water mixture. (Closed)
3.5.11
Maintenance work of machine was observed. The Contactor was reminded to
provide effective measures to contain potential oil spillage of leakage before
handling oil on site and waste oil should be collected and dispose of as chemical
waste. (Reminder)
3.5.12
Sand and equipment materials
deposited inside the drip tray was observed at Portion C2A. The Contractor was
reminded to clear the deposited sand and store the equipment materials properly. Contractor cleared the
deposited materials and provided drip tray to the mechanical equipment.
(Closed)
3.5.13 Oil drums were observed without drip tray at Portion C1a, on barge
Sun Hung Ming, on floating grout production facility. The Contractor was
reminded to provide drip tray to all oil drums. The Contractor provide drip
tray to oil drums or removed the oil drums from the area. (Closed)
3.5.14 Water and oil mixture was observed full at one side of the drip tray
on barge SHE7. The Contractor was advised to clear the water inside trip
tray. The Contractor cleared the
water inside trip tray. (Closed)
3.5.15 A gap was observed within the frame of the drip tray on barge SHE7.
The Contractor was reminded to provide rectification and ensure no gap within
the frame of drip tray. The Contractor provided rectification and ensures no
gap within the frame of drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.16 It was observed that a generator was not put inside a drip tray. The
Contractor was reminded to provide mitigation measures such as to put all
generator inside drip tray. The Contractor provided mitigation measures such as
to put all generator inside drip tray. (Closed)
3.5.17 General refuse were observed at Portion A, D, B, E1, C2a and other
areas. The Contractor was reminded to regularly collect and dispose general
refuse properly to keep the site clean and tidy. The Contractor cleared the general
refuse and kept the site clean and tidy. (Closed)
3.5.18 Sand and equipment materials deposited inside the drip tray was
observed at Portion C2A. The Contractor was reminded to clear the deposited
sand and store the equipment materials properly. Contractor cleared the deposited materials
and provided drip tray to the mechanical equipment. (Closed)
3.5.19 General refuse observed at sea area at south part of the HKBCF
reclamation works, on land area of portion D and portion A. The Contractor was
reminded to regularly clear general refuse within the site to keep the site
clean and tidy. The Contractor rectified the situation and cleared general
refuse at sea area within the site to keep the site clean and tidy. (Closed)
3.5.20 Defective drip trays such as drip tray with insufficient size or
deformed frame were observed at portion B and on floating grout production
facility, the Contractor is advised to properly provide mitigation measures
such as drip trays to all PMEs. The Contractor rectified the situation and
removed the generator from the area or from the defective drip tray or provided
mitigation measures such as drip trays with sufficient size to the
generator. (Closed)
3.5.21 Bags of dry cement were observed on barge SHB 402, the Contractor
was reminded to properly handle them or dispose of properly. The Contractor
removed and cleared the bags of dry cement. (Closed)
Landscape and Visual Impact
3.5.22
No relevant adverse impact was observed in
the reporting month.
Others
3.5.23 Rectifications of
remaining identified items are undergoing by the Contractor. Follow-up
inspections on the status on provision of
mitigation measures will be conducted to ensure all identified items are
mitigated properly.
4.1.1 The Contractor registered as a chemical waste producer for this
project. Sufficient numbers of receptacles were available for general refuse
collection and sorting.
4.1.2
As advised by the Contractor, 4,504,117m3 of fill were imported
for the Project use in the reporting period. 1.5kg of
metal, 811kg of paper/cardboard packaging, 6,401kg plastics, 2,400kg of
chemical waste and 149.5m3 of general refuse were generated and
disposed of in the reporting period. Monthly summary of waste flow table is
detailed in Appendix I.
4.1.3 The Contractor is advised to properly maintain on site C&D
materials and wastes collection, sorting and recording system, dispose of
C&D materials and wastes at designated ground and maximize reuse / recycle
of C&D materials and wastes. The Contractor is reminded to properly
maintain the site tidiness and dispose of the wastes accumulated on site
regularly and properly.
4.1.4 The Contractor is reminded that chemical waste containers should be
properly treated and stored temporarily in designated chemical waste storage
area on site in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging,
Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes.
5.1.1
In response to the site audit
findings, the Contractors carried out corrective actions.
5.1.2 A summary of the Implementation Schedule of Environmental Mitigation
Measures (EMIS) is presented in Appendix C. Most of the recommended mitigation
measures are being upheld. Moreover, regular review and checking on the
construction methodologies, working processes and plants were carried out to
ensure the environmental impacts were kept minimal and recommended
environmental mitigation measures were implemented effectively.
5.1.3 Training of marine travel route for marine vessels operator was
given to relevant staff and relevant records were kept properly.
5.1.4 Regarding the implementation of dolphin monitoring and protection
measures (i.e. implementation of Dolphin Watching Plan, Dolphin Exclusion Zone
and Silt Curtain integrity Check), regular checks were conducted by experienced
MMOs within the works area to ensure that no dolphins were trapped by the silt
curtain area. There were no dolphins spotted within the silt curtain during
this quarter. The relevant procedures were followed and all measures were well
implemented. The silt curtains were also inspected in accordance to the
submitted plan.
5.1.5 Acoustic decoupling measures on noisy plants on construction vessels
were checked regularly and the Contractor was reminded to ensure provision of
ongoing maintenance to noisy plants and to carry out improvement work once
insufficient acoustic decoupling measures were found.
5.1.6 Frequency of watering per day on exposed soil was checked; with
reference to the record provided by the Contract, watering was conducted at
least 8 times per day on reclaimed land. The frequency of watering is the
mainly refer to water truck. Sprinklers are only served to strengthen dust control
measure for busy traffic at the entrance of Portion D. As informed by the
Contractor, during the mal-function period of sprinkler, water truck will
enhance watering at such area. The Contractor was reminded to ensure provision
of watering of at least 8 times per day on all exposed soil within the Project
site and associated works areas throughout the construction phase.
5.1.7 As
informed by the Contractor via email at 15:06 on 8 December 2014, oil was
observed at sea area near western waters within the silt curtain at 15:00 on 8
December 2014. Following the spill response plan ET, IEC and the RSS were
informed of the incident by the Contractor.
5.1.7.1
Investigation actions:
- Details
of the oil spillage incident (8 December 2014)
including size, location, time of the spillage and Contractor’s action taken in
response to the spill incident, have been reviewed.
- Joint
site inspection was conducted on 11 December 2014 with the Contactor and RSS to
observe the sea condition near sea area nearby western waters within the silt
curtain.
- Impact
water quality monitoring records of 8 and 10 December 2014 have been reviewed.
5.1.7.2
The oil spill was visually
identified by the Contractor and RSS on 8 December 2014 as discrete,
non-continuous source with approximately 25m2 spread. (Also refer to
photo record below) 
5.1.7.3
The oil
stain was no longer found when the emergency boat arrived
the area about 15mins after the observation. And no sign of oil spillage was
found on the nearby waters after. (Please see below photo record for reference). 
5.1.7.4
The oil
stain observed was limited at nearby western sea area within the silt curtain.
5.1.7.5
An joint
site inspection was conducted with ET, Contractor and RSS on 11 December 2014
at perimeter of HKBCF Reclamation Works and no oil spillage was observed on
site. (Also refer to photo record
below).
5.1.7.6
Impact water quality monitoring
records of 8 and 10 December 2014 have been reviewed; the IWQN location close to
the oil spill is IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR5 and SR7. There is no exceedance of IWQM recorded
at IS10, IS(Mf)11, SR5 and SR7 on 8 on 10 December
2014.
5.1.7.7
The contractor was reminded to
continue to follow the spill response plan in the event of accidental oil spillage.
6
Summary of Exceedances of the Environmental Quality Performance
Limit
6.1.1 Three (3) action level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were recorded AMS2,
AMS3B and AMS7A on 12 February 2015. After investigation, there is no adequate
information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are related to
this Contract. No 24-hr TSP Action and Limit Level exceedances were recorded on
other monitoring date in the reporting period. All 1-Hour TSP results were
below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.
6.1.2 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
6.1.3 A total of (17) seventeen exceedances were recorded in this
reporting quarter: One (1) limit level exeedance and
one (1) action level exceedance were recorded at monitoring station IS17 and
IS(Mf)9 respectively on 5 December 2014 during mid ebb tide; one (1) action
level exceedance was recorded at IS10 and one (1) action level exceedance was
recorded at SR5 respectively on 12 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1)
action level exceedance was recorded at IS17 on 16 January 2015 during ebb
tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS17, SR5, SR6 and IS10
respectively, on 21 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level
exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR10B(N) and SR7 respectively on 23
January 2015 during flood tide. One
(1) limit level exceedance was recorded at SR10A and SR6 respectively on 23
January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at
IS(Mf)11 on 26 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1)
Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 and one (1) Action Level Exceedance of
SS at SR7 during Flood tide recorded on 23 February 2015.
6.1.4 After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude
the recorded exceedances are related to this Contract.
6.1.5 One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in
the reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB
works is one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also
concluded the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or
individual marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor
separate from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin
Monitoring was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix
L.
6.1.6 Cumulative statistics on exceedances is provided in Appendix J.
7
Summary of Complaints, Notification of Summons and Successful
Prosecutions
7.1.1 The Environmental Complaint Handling Procedure is annexed in Figure
5.
7.1.2
No complaint, notification of summons or prosecution was received in the reporting quarter.
7.1.3 Statistics on complaints, notifications of summons and successful
prosecutions are summarized in Appendix N.
8.1
Comments on mitigation
measures
8.1.1
According to the environmental site inspections performed in the
reporting quarter, the following recommendations were provided:
Air Quality Impact
·
All working plants and vessels on site should be regularly inspected and
properly maintained to avoid dark smoke emission.
·
All vehicles should be washed to remove any dusty materials before
leaving the site.
·
Haul roads should be sufficiently dampened to minimize fugitive dust
generation.
·
Wheel washing facilities should be properly maintained and reviewed to
ensure properly functioning.
·
Temporary exposed slopes and open stockpiles should be properly covered.
·
Enclosure should be erected for cement debagging, batching and mixing
operations.
·
Water spraying should be provided to suppress fugitive dust for any
dusty construction activity.
·
Regular review and provide maintenance to dust control measures such as
sprinkler system.
Construction Noise Impact
·
Quieter powered mechanical equipment should be used as far as possible.
·
Noisy operations should be oriented to a direction away from sensitive
receivers as far as possible.
·
Proper and effective noise control measures for operating equipment and
machinery on-site should be provided, such as erection of movable noise
barriers or enclosure for noisy plants. Closely check and replace the sound
insulation materials regularly
·
Vessels and equipment operating should be checked regularly and properly
maintained.
·
Noise Emission Label (NEL) shall be affixed to the air compressor and
hand-held breaker operating within works area.
·
Acoustic decoupling measures should be properly implemented for all
existing and incoming construction vessels with continuous and regularly
checking to ensure effective implementation of acoustic decoupling measures.
Water Quality Impact
·
Regular review and maintenance of silt curtain systems, drainage systems
and desilting facilities in order to make sure they are functioning
effectively.
·
Construction of seawall should be completed as early as possible.
·
Regular inspect and review the loading process from barges to avoid
splashing of material.
·
Silt, debris and leaves accumulated at public drains, wheel washing bays
and perimeter u-channels and desilting facilities should be cleaned up
regularly.
·
Silty effluent should be treated/ desilted before discharged. Untreated
effluent should be prevented from entering public drain channel.
·
Proper drainage channels/bunds should be provided at the site boundaries
to collect/intercept the surface run-off from works areas.
·
Exposed slopes and stockpiles should be covered up properly during
rainstorm.
Chemical and Waste
Management
·
All types of wastes, both on land and floating in the sea, should be
collected and sorted properly and disposed of timely and properly. They should
be properly stored in designated areas within works areas temporarily.
·
All chemical containers and oil drums should be properly stored and
labelled.
·
All plants and vehicles on site should be properly maintained to prevent
oil leakage.
·
All kinds of maintenance works should be carried out within roofed,
paved and confined areas.
·
All drain holes of the drip trays utilized within works areas should be
properly plugged to avoid any oil and chemical waste leakage.
·
Oil stains on soil surface and empty chemical containers should be
cleared and disposed of as chemical waste.
·
Regular review should be conducted for working barges and patrol boats
to ensure sufficient measures and spill control kits were provided on working
barges and patrol boats to avoid any spreading of leaked oil/chemicals.
Landscape and Visual
Impact
·
All existing, retained/transplanted trees at the works areas should be
properly fenced off and regularly inspected.
·
Control night-time lighting and glare by hooding all lights.
8.2
Recommendations on EM&A Programme
8.2.1 The impact monitoring programme for air
quality, noise, water quality and dolphin ensured that any deterioration in
environmental condition was readily detected and timely actions taken to
rectify any non-compliance. Assessment and analysis of monitoring results
collected demonstrated the environmental impacts of the Project. With
implementation of recommended effective environmental mitigation measures, the
Project’s environmental impacts were considered as environmentally acceptable.
The weekly environmental site inspections ensured that all the environmental
mitigation measures recommended were effectively implemented.
8.2.2 The recommended environmental mitigation measures, as included in
the EM&A programme, effectively minimize the
potential environmental impacts from the Project. Also, the EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts
from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of
mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the
improvement of the programme.
8.3
Conclusions
8.3.1 The construction phase and EM&A programme
of the Project commenced on 12 March 2012.
8.3.2
Three (3) action level exceedances of 24-hr TSP were
recorded AMS2, AMS3B and AMS7A on 12 February 2015. After investigation, there is
no adequate information to conclude the recorded action level exceedances are
related to this Contract. No 24-hr TSP Action and Limit Level exceedances were
recorded on other monitoring date in the reporting period. All 1-Hour TSP
results were below the Action and Limit Level in the reporting period.
8.3.3 For construction noise, no exceedance was recorded at all monitoring
stations in the reporting period.
8.3.4
A total of (17) seventeen exceedances were recorded in this
reporting quarter: One (1) limit
level exeedance and one (1) action level exceedance
were recorded at monitoring station IS17 and IS(Mf)9 respectively on 5 December
2014 during mid ebb tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS10
and one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at SR5 respectively on 12
January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at
IS17 on 16 January 2015 during ebb tide; one (1) action level exceedance was
recorded at IS17, SR5, SR6 and IS10 respectively, on 21 January 2015 during flood
tide; one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11, SR10B(N) and
SR7 respectively on 23 January 2015 during flood tide. One (1) limit level exceedance was
recorded at SR10A and SR6 respectively on 23 January 2015 during flood tide;
one (1) action level exceedance was recorded at IS(Mf)11
on 26 January 2015 during flood tide; one (1) Limit Level Exceedance of SS at IS(Mf)11 and one (1) Action
Level Exceedance of SS at SR7 during Flood tide recorded on 23 February 2015.
After investigation, there is no adequate information to conclude the recorded
exceedances are related to this Contract.
8.3.5
One (1) Limit Level exceedance of dolphin monitoring was recorded in the
reporting quarter. After investigation, it was concluded that the HZMB works is
one of the contributing factors affecting the dolphins. It was also concluded
the contribution of impacts due to the HZMB works as a whole (or individual
marine contracts) cannot be quantified nor separate
from the other stress factors. Event Action Plan for Impact Dolphin Monitoring
was triggered. For detail of investigation, please refer to appendix L.
8.3.6 Environmental site inspection was carried out thirteen times in the
reporting quarter. Recommendations on remedial actions were given to the
Contractors for the deficiencies identified during the site audits.
8.3.7 No complaint, notification of summons or prosecution was received in
the reporting quarter.
8.3.8 As informed by the Contractor via email at 15:06 on 8 December 2014,
oil was observed at sea area near western waters within the silt curtain at
15:00 on 8 December 2014. Following the spill response plan ET, IEC and the RSS
were informed of the incident by the Contractor.
8.3.9 Apart from the above mentioned monitoring, most of the recommended
mitigation measures, as included in the EM&A programme, were implemented
properly in the reporting quarter.
8.3.10 The recommended environmental mitigation measures effectively
minimize the potential environmental impacts from the Project. The EM&A programme effectively monitored the environmental impacts
from the construction activities and ensure the proper implementation of
mitigation measures. No particular recommendation was advised for the
improvement of the programme.
8.3.11 Moreover, regular review and checking on the construction methodologies,
working processes and plants were carried out to ensure the environmental
impacts were kept minimal and recommended environmental mitigation measures
were implemented effectively.
